Closed dstarosta closed 2 years ago
Good catch!
I fixed it: 5d9d7d3c71216d84fbe8a62cc9d7c27b213506ef I also added parentheses to macro definitions to catch these kind of mistakes.
If that's a bug would it affect the byte integrity of the sequence?
I don't think the fix changes the resulting byte sequence.
With the original definition of dx
, both dx(-)2
and dx(-2)
expand to SEQ_DX, (byte) -2
.
With the new dx
, dx(-2)
expands to SEQ_DX, (byte) (-2)
which means the same.
dx(-)2
expands to SEQ_DX, (byte) (-)2
which is a syntax error.
But to be sure, I recompiled with CHECK_SEQTABLE_MATCHES_ORIGINAL
enabled (and USE_SUPER_HIGH_JUMP
disabled).
SDLPoP says this on the console on startup:
Checking that the sequence table matches the original DOS version...
All good, no differences found!
The number is outside the "dx" macro brackets. If that's a bug would it affect the byte integrity of the sequence?
https://github.com/NagyD/SDLPoP/blob/96fae3987f532551cf5d14319e6c13e72842b418/src/seqtbl.c#L784